And from that to have found faults in Sanford’s book when he answered many of those faults in later chapters was very humorous.
For example? Which faults did he answer, and how?
”Could it be that Sanford twisted everything’ just because he is a Bible thumper? - or so suggested the great Averendo.
No he didn't. You made that up.
But he did not even begin to answer Sanford ...
You mean, apart from saying why he was wrong?
... and I doubt many institutions of learning will use this Blog for their answer to Sanford.
I doubt any institutions of learning will bother answering one more creationist making the same mistakes again. Why bother?
I have seen Dawkins use many of the same types of arguments to make the case for evolution as Sanford used to make against it.
Really. Quotations?
Averendo tried to insinuate that Sanford’s right to a religious belief has forever compromised his scientific abilities...
No he didn't you made that up.
... when in fact it is obvious that Averendo has his own preconceived religion - of a type - that forever bars him from truly judging Sanford fairly.
You owe me for a new irony meter.
First you pretend that Averendo has attacked Sandford on the basis of his religion, which he never does. Then you invent an imaginary religion for Averendo and attack him for it.
That's got as much class as a pimp dead-drunk in a gutter.
Having finished Sanford’s book I found Averendo’s pathetic attacks - some filled with personal innuendos ...
This is not true. You made that up.
In any event I do hope science does finally quit shying away from the credible assault Sanford made ...
He made a credible assault? Really? Please quote one of his credible arguments.
As for "shying away from it", there seems to be nothing new in is book, and scientists have published data showing that his arguments are wrong before he even adopted them.
... especially since it is mainly a series of quotes from dyed in the wool evolutionists - some quite recent by the way.
Oooh, quote-mining, that's original. Of course, none of these "dyed-in-the-wool evolutionists" intended their words to be read out of context as meaning that evolution was impossible.
I hope they don’t do what men like Dawkins loves to do - just fall into personality attacks and mud slinging.
He "loves to do" that? Really? Do you have quotations to back this claim up?
I do tire of science’s paranoia of the stupid Bible!! Certainly geology suffered massively because of this silly paranoia - resisting things like plate tectonics or asteroid created astroblems - simply because they were afraid of the terms ”large change’ or ”catastrophe’, and that because they feared the silly Bible.
This is not true. You made this up.
Based on the total lack of material or mechanical causation for how tree cells arrange themselves and alter their character -
Er ... this "total lack of material or mechanical causation" --- is that somehting you have evidence for, or something you just made up in your head?
I personally believe there will be discovered a universal substrate - no doubt built of other dimensions that will show that what we call intelligence is really just another force waiting to be discovered. We admit that our particles could be energy in another universe. Perhaps our entropy - information destruction - is an upward evolution in another universe as well, while the entropy in the other universe is upward evolution - ”information creation’ - in ours. Such a condition could appear in waves or in periodic surges.
"Today a young man realized that all matter is merely energy condensed through a slow vibration, we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, life is only a dream and we are the imaginations of ourselves. Here's Tom with the weather."
™ Version 4.2
